33892 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules

1The rule does not differentiate between major

and minor changes. Amendment of Sections 1.517

and 1.520, 61 FCC 2d 38 (1976).

V. Safeguards

12. As one of several CPNI safeguards,

the Commission required in the Second

Report and Order each carrier to certify

that it is in compliance with the

Commission’s CPNI rules. In describing

a carrier’s duty, the Commission stated

that each carrier must ‘‘submit a

certification’’ and that the certification

‘‘must be made publicly available.’’ We

clarify that the Commission’s use of the

word ‘‘submit’’ in the order was not

intended to require carriers to file such

certifications with the Commission.

Rather, the order directs carriers to

ensure only that these corporate

certifications be made publicly

available.

VI. Ordering Clauses

13. It is ordered that, pursuant to

sections 1, 4(i), 222 and 303(r) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 222 and

303(r), and authority delegated

thereunder pursuant to sections 0.91

and 0.291 of the Commission’s rules, 47

CFR 0.91, 0.291, this Order is hereby

adopted.

Federal Communications Commission.

Richard K. Welch,

Acting Deputy Chief, Common Carrier

Bureau.

[FR Doc. 98–16511 Filed 6–19–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 73 and 74

[MM Docket No. 98–93; FCC 98–117]

1998 Biennial Regulatory Review—

Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Commission seeks

comment on proposals that would

change fundamentally the way it

evaluates proposals that would create

interference in the FM band. It also

seeks comment on whether the

contingent application rule should be

modified to permit coordinated facility

modifications among broadcasters. The

Commission proposes a signal

propagation methodology that more

accurately takes into account terrain

effects to better predict where

interference would not occur; adoption

of this methodology would permit

certain applicants to obtain greater

service improvements. The Commission

also proposes other changes to promote

greater technical flexibility in the FM

service and to streamline and expedite

the processing of applications to modify

existing facilities in several services.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before August 21, 1998. Reply

comments are due September 21, 1998.

Written comments by the public on the

proposed information collections are

due on or before August 21, 1998.

ADDRESSES: All comments and reply

comments should be addressed to the

Office of the Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission, 1919 M

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

Copies of these pleadings also should be

sent to the Mass Media Bureau, Audio

Services Division (Room 302), 1919 M

St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, and

the Office of General Counsel (Room

610), 1919 M St., N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20554. In addition to filing

comments with the Secretary, a copy of

any comments on the information

collections contained herein should be

submitted to Judy Boley, Federal

Communications Commission, Room

234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20554, or via the Internet to

jboley@fcc.gov and to Timothy Fain,

OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725—

17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20503 or via the Internet to

fainlt@al.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peter Doyle, Dale Bickel or William

Scher, Audio Services Division, Mass

Media Bureau, (202) 418–2780. For

additional information concerning the

information collections contained in

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(Document) contact Judy Boley at (202)

418–1214, or via the Internet at

jboley@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket

No. 98–93 and FCC No. 98–117, adopted

June 11, 1998 and released June 15,

1998. The complete text of this Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking is available for

inspection and copying during regular

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center (Room 239), 1919 M St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20554 and may also

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractor, International

Transcription Service, (202) 857–3800

(phone), (202) 857–3805 (facsimile),

1231 20th St., N.W., Washington, D.C.

20036.

Synopsis of Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking

I. Negotiated Interference in the FM

Service

A. Introduction/Background

1. The Commission frequently has

used the term ‘‘negotiated interference’’

to describe agreements between or

among stations to accept new or

increased interference within their

protected service contours, typically in

connection with proposals to expand

service by one or several stations. The

Commission generally has rejected

attempts by applicants to negotiate

interference levels on a case-by-case

basis, holding that the selection of

interference standards is a nondelegable Commission responsibility.

Nevertheless, the Commission has

concluded that the public interest

would be served by modifying the

contingent application rule and AM cutoff procedures to facilitate coordinated

technical changes between AM stations.

No parallel changes have been adopted

for FM applications, with the exception

of certain grandfathered short-spaced

stations. Thus, the Commission has

condoned the use of agreements to

promote service improvements in the

technically more difficult AM service,

as well as agreements between stations

that operate, axiomatically, at spacings

substantially less than current new

station requirements, while consistently

rejecting the use of these same

agreements between fully-spaced FM

stations where interference concerns

generally would be less. In short,

current Commission policy provides the

least flexibility for technical facility

improvements in mid-sized major

markets where FM broadcasters face the

greatest technical constraints to

undertake such improvements.

B. Specific Proposals

i. Agreements Involving Applications

for Coordinated FM Station Changes

2. Background. Section 73.3517

prohibits the filing of contingent

applications in the FM broadcast

services.1 As stated above, the

Commission permits the filing of

contingent applications to facilitate

interference reduction and service

improvements by either separately or

commonly owned AM stations. The

Commission has received similar

requests from FM stations that have

entered into agreements that propose

‘‘coordinated’’ or ‘‘interrelated’’ facility
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules 33893

2The commercial FM ‘‘one-step’’ processing rules

were designed to facilitate improvements by

eliminating the necessity for a petition for

rulemaking in instances where licensees seek

upgrades on adjacent and co-channels,

modifications to adjacent channels of the same

class, and downgrades to adjacent channel. Onestep applications are processed as minor change

applications.

3A ‘‘white’’ area receives no full-time aural

service, a ‘‘gray’’ area receives one full-time aural

service. We note that case law suggests that the

Commission is precluded from allowing the

creation of any white or gray areas. See, e.g., West

Michigan Television v. FCC, 460 F.2d 883 (D.C. Cir.

1971).

4 47 U.S.C. 307(b).

relocations, modifications, and ‘‘onestep’’ upgrades and downgrades.2

3. Discussion. We propose to allow

the filing of contingent minor change

FM construction applications on a

limited basis. We would require that

such applications be filed on the same

date, and that each include a copy of the

agreement covering all related

applications. These related minor

change applications would be processed

and if grantable, granted

simultaneously. The construction

permits would be conditioned as

necessary to allow an orderly

implementation of non-interfering

service. If any application in the group

could not be approved, we propose to

dismiss all applications filed as an

interrelated group. We would reject any

coordinated agreement that, in our

determination, would not serve the

public interest. We seek comment on

each aspect of this proposal.

4. We also propose to permit the filing

of contingent proposals that include

one-step upgrade and downgrade

applications. We tentatively conclude

that this change is consistent with the

rationale underlying the one-step

policy. The ‘‘opportunity’’ for filing

competing proposals in this context is

wholly dependent on two stations

reaching agreement on the coordinated

facility changes. However, stations are

reluctant to pursue coordinated facility

changes where there is a possibility that

a competing application could be filed.

We tentatively conclude that the

potential preclusion of competing

allotment and minor change proposals

is consistent with the public interest,

and that the proposed procedures are

consistent with section 307(b) of the

Act.

5. In addition, we tentatively

conclude that contingent applications

should be limited to four related,

simultaneously filed applications. We

seek comment on this limitation and

whether a different policy should apply

where some or all proposals involve

stations under common ownership.

6. We also propose additional

requirements when the coordinated

changes include cancelling an NCE FM

station license. In 1990, the Commission

decided against establishing a specific

local transmission service floor with

respect to our public interest evaluation

of contingent arrangements that propose

to terminate AM facilities. Instead we

adopted guidelines that permit case-bycase evaluation of such applications. We

propose to apply AM interference

reduction principles to NCE FM

agreements proposing the cancellation

of an NCE FM station license. Thus,

proposals could not create white or gray

areas.3 In addition, agreements to

terminate a community’s only local

transmission service would be

considered on a case-by-case basis and

would take into account the availability

of other services and the possibility of

restoring local service with either an

AM or FM station. We seek comment on

whether to establish a ‘‘local service

floor’’ to ensure that the granting of

contingent applications does not result

in a loss of service that would be

detrimental to the public interest.

ii. Agreements Involving Applications

That Would Cause New or Increased

Interference

7. Background. The Commission has

been extremely reluctant to permit the

creation of interference within a

station’s protected service contour,

particularly where none currently

exists. We have been concerned that this

policy would lead to further clustering

of stations in urban areas in

contravention of section 307(b) of the

Act. We also have opposed such

proposals on spectrum efficiency

grounds and because grant of

interference-creating applications could

effectively foreclose facility

improvements by stations receiving new

interference. Nevertheless, we believe

that this technical streamlining

initiative provides an opportunity to

reconsider our policy options in the

context of the technically simpler NCE

FM and commercial FM services. Radio

is truly a mature service. Congestion in

the FM band provides a major technical

impediment to the further ‘‘urban

clustering’’ of stations. Moreover, a

station’s core obligation to serve its

community of license will continue to

limit transmitter relocations and service

area modifications. As a result,

measures designed to give broadcasters

additional flexibility may raise lesser

concerns at this time regarding the ‘‘fair,

efficient, and equitable distribution of

radio service * * *.’’ 4

8. There are additional reasons to

reconsider these policies at this time.

The financial and management

sophistication of the radio broadcast

industry has grown dramatically in

recent years, spurred by fundamental

changes in local ownership and the

elimination of national ownership

restrictions. Moreover, both Congress

and the Commission are committed to

relying to the greatest extent possible on

competitive communications markets

rather than resource-intensive

regulatory policies to safeguard the

public interest. In this environment, we

seek comment on whether it is possible

to provide broadcasters some additional

flexibility under our technical rules to

expand service while at the same time

establishing requirements to ensure that

negotiated interference agreements are

limited to situations where service gains

would outweigh service losses and the

creation of new and/or expanded areas

of interference.

9. Discussion. We seek comment on

whether we should amend §§ 73.215(a)

and 73.509 to permit applications that

would result in prohibited overlap and,

therefore, interference based on the

following four criteria:

(1) Total interference received by any

station from all interfering stations must

be no greater than five percent of the

area and population within each

affected station’s protected service

contour;

(2) Total service gain must be at least

five times as great as the increase in

total interference, in terms of both area

and population. Service gain would be

defined as the difference between the

current service contour area and

population, and the proposed service

contour area and population. Total

service gain would be the sum of all

service gains for all stations included in

the agreement. Interference increase

would be defined as the difference

between the current interference area

and population, and the proposed

interference area and population. Total

interference would be the sum of all

interference increases and decreases

received by all affected stations and

applicants, in terms of area and

population. Interference calculations

would include interference received by

a proposal even if it occured beyond

that station’s current service contour. If

interference calculations made in

accordance with this criterion

established that total interference would

be decreased, an applicant would be

exempt from any service gain

requirement;

(3) No predicted interference can

occur within the boundaries of any
33894 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules

affected station’s community of license;

and

(4) Any application causing or

receiving interference in an area that

previously received interference-free

service would be required to

demonstrate the existence of at least five

remaining aural services within each

interference area.

We request comment on each of these

factors, including whether the

interference cap and gain/loss ratio

strike an appropriate public interest

balance. Should the Commission adopt

additional or fewer restrictions? Should

the Commission adopt separate service

floor requirements for commercial and

NCE FM stations?

10. If a rule change is adopted,

applicants would be required to file

coordinated facility modifications on

the same date and clearly crossreference all associated applications. A

copy of the written consent of all

stations receiving interference within

their protected service contour as a

result of proposed facility

modification(s) would be submitted

with the applications. Under this

approach, we would amend Form 301 to

require applicants to certify compliance

with these negotiated interference

standards and to submit supporting

materials in exhibit form. We believe

that careful review of interferencecreating proposals filed pursuant to

novel procedures would be particularly

warranted. We seek comment on this

conclusion and whether the

Commission should rely on applicant

certifications without supporting

exhibits. All non-reserved band

applications would be required to

satisfy the less stringent § 73.215(e)

spacing requirements and all

construction permits granted to FM nonreserved band applicants would be

granted as § 73.215 proposals. In

addition, we would amend § 73.509 to

prohibit second- and third-adjacent

channel NCE FM stations from

proposing transmitter sites within an

affected station’s 63 dBu contour. This

would prevent interference areas deep

within a station’s service contour, and

assure minimum distance separations

between stations, thus promoting fair

and equitable distribution of stations as

required by section 307(b) of the

Communications Act. We seek comment

on whether this NCE FM restriction is

necessary to prevent a deluge of

modification applications that would

shift service away from less well-served

areas. All construction permits granted

pursuant to these procedures would be

conditioned on the simultaneous

implementation of all related proposals.

We invite comment on each aspect of

this proposal.

11. To the extent that these

procedures would result in the favorable

consideration of applications that

propose new areas of caused

interference, they would also support

changes in the way we treat interference

received. New areas of received

interference can result from a station’s

unilateral proposal to extend its own

service contour so that it overlaps the

interfering contour of an authorized

station. In effect, such a proposal

reflects a station’s determination that

increased potential listenership

outweighs a certain amount of

interference within its (expanded)

service area. Typically, the new area of

interference affects potential listeners

who were not predicted to receive

service previously. We seek comment

on whether we should permit such

modifications provided that an

applicant demonstrates compliance

with each of these requirements.

However, no consent from any other

station would be required where the

proposal would not result in

interference occurring within the

service contour of any reserved band

station, any § 73.215 station or any

station operating with the equivalent of

maximum class facilities. Applicants

that propose a short-spacing to any

other type of station would have to

obtain consent from such affected

station to receive interference. If the

affected station chooses not to increase

power simultaneously to a full-class

facility as part of the agreement with the

applicant, the affected station must

request reclassification as a § 73.215

licensee/permittee. This ‘‘§ 73.215

condition’’ on the affected station’s

authorization effectively would limit

that station to its current facilities (with

regard to the applicant’s proposal) and

would prevent subsequent unilateral

increases by the affected station

resulting in interference caused to the

applicant’s improved facilities.

12. We seek comment on whether we

should follow the methodology adopted

in the recent grandfathered short-spaced

FM station proceeding to determine

areas of interference using the desiredto-undesired signal strength ratio

analysis and the standard F(50,50) and

F(50,10) propagation curves.

Grandfathered Short-Spaced FM

Stations, Report and Order, 62 FR

50518, September 26, 1997. As noted

therein, the ratio method is the most

appropriate method for determining

areas of interference. We seek comments

on this view. Cochannel interference

would be predicted to exist at all

locations within the desired station’s

coverage contour where the undesired

(interfering) F(50,10) field strength

exceeds a value 20 dB below the desired

(protected) F(50,50) field strength. Firstadjacent channel interference would be

predicted to exist at all locations within

the desired station’s coverage contour

where the undesired (interfering)

F(50,10) field strength exceed a value 6

dB below the desired (protected)

F(50,50) field strength. Second- and

third-adjacent channel interference

would be predicted to exist at all

locations within the desired station’s

coverage area where the undesired

(interfering) F(50,10) field strength

exceeds a value 40 dB above the desired

(protected) F(50,50) field strength. We

invite comment on these standards and

the use of this methodology.

13. We believe that consideration is

warranted in this document of the

standards that would apply to waiver

requests of the interference rules

proposed herein. Section 73.215

codifies a relief mechanism for

applicants to specify sub-standard

spacings provided that certain criteria

are met. If an applicant cannot meet

these standards, then § 73.207 distance

separation requirements must control.

We propose to continue to follow this

same procedure with regard to any

interference-related rule changes

adopted pursuant to this document.

Specifically, in analyzing a request for

waiver of § 73.215(e), we propose to

measure the short-spacing in accordance

with § 73.207 and to apply the

traditional threshold three-part and

public interest tests developed in

§ 73.207 jurisprudence. Similarly, with

regard to interference-creating proposals

between or among consenting

broadcasters, the Commission would

consider prohibited overlap in

accordance with established precedent.

In no event would such an applicant be

entitled to a presumption that creating

any interference—much less five

percent—within any station’s protected

service contour would be in the public

interest. We seek comment on these

proposed waiver policies.

14. A broadcaster’s obligations to

accurately prepare each facility

application, to truthfully complete each

application certification, to construct

and operate facilities in accordance with

its authorization, and, generally, to

adhere to the Commission’s technical

rules become particularly significant

where stations may create small

amounts of interference and where

several facility modifications may be

mutually interdependent. We are fully

committed to exercising our plenary

enforcement powers against applicants

that enter into negotiated interference
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules 33895

5 Field Strength Curves, Report and Order in

Dockets 16004 and 18052, 53 FCC 2d 855, 863

(1975).

6Temporary Suspension of Certain Portions of

Sections 73.313, 73.333, 73.684, and 73.699, FCC

75–1226, 56 FCC 2d 749 (1975), stay extended

indefinitely, 40 Rad. Reg. 2d 965 (1977).

7Specifically, we refer to interfering contours

calculated in association with the Commission’s

overlap requirements for FM commercial, NCE FM,

and FM Translator stations (47 CFR 73.215, 73.509,

73.1204, respectively); overlap of the interfering

contours of intermediate frequency (IF)

grandfathered short-spaced stations (§ 73.213(b));

and the interfering contours utilized in showings

that involve undesired- to-desired (U/D) signal

ratios in conjunction with FM to TV Channel Six

interference showings (§ 73.525) and public interest

showings related to pre-1964 grandfathered shortspaced stations (§ 73.213(a)).

8The staff currently entertains alternate

prediction methods in the context of main studio

locations. However, in order to warrant study,

current commercial FM processing policy requires

that such showings may be submitted if they alter

the 3.16 mV/m contour by at least ten percent when

compared to the standard prediction method. In

contrast, the staff can efficiently confirm that an

applicant has properly used the PTP methodology.

Accordingly, we propose to eliminate the ten

percent method for PTP contour studies that

establish compliance with the Commission’s main

studio location rule.

agreements where we find that

application showings and/or

certifications have fallen short of

Commission standards, regardless of the

time at which the application errors are

brought to the Commission’s attention.

In the event we adopt negotiated

interference procedures for FM stations,

we propose to publish, as necessary,

decisions that explain or clarify these

new procedures. We believe that a

program that combines strict

enforcement and broad information

dissemination would promote full and

candid disclosure of material technical

information in applications and

compliance with our rules and policies.

We seek comment on this enforcement

approach for negotiated interference

agreements. We also request that

commenters identify specific

enforcement procedures that the

Commission should follow and the sort

of sanctions that it should impose where

an applicant provides false or

incomplete information in its

application or where construction is at

variance to an authorization.

15. We seek comment on whether this

proposal to permit small amounts of

interference in limited circumstances

would protect service to a station’s

community of license and would help

preserve an adequate service floor for all

listeners. In particular, we invite public

comment on the following issues to help

develop a better record on the technical

and policy issues that these proposals

raise: (1) Would these negotiated

interference procedures sufficiently

protect the interests of listeners and

licensees not party to an agreement?; (2)

Could this proposal result in service

losses to smaller communities and/or

less desirable demographic audiences?;

(3) Should negotiated interference

agreements between commercial

stations be treated differently from

agreements between noncommercial

educational stations?; (4) How might

this proposal affect the development

and implementation of in-band onchannel (IBOC) digital radio systems?;

(5) Is there a danger that negotiated

interference agreements over time may

lead to less flexibility to make future

changes when, for example, a

transmitter site is lost and a station must

relocate?; (6) Is there reason to believe

that the accumulation of negotiated

interference agreements over a period of

years could lead to a general

degradation of FM service in the United

States?; (7) Is this negotiated

interference proposal consistent with

section 307(b) of the Communications

Act?; (8) To what extent should the

Commission rely on applicant

certifications to ensure compliance with

negotiated interference agreement

requirements?; (9) Should the

Commission require licensees to

maintain negotiated interference

agreements in their local public

inspection files? Should they be filed

with the Commission?; (10) Should the

Commission limit agreements to one or

several license terms? Should an

agreement be terminable following the

transfer of a station that previously

consented to interference within its

service contour?; (11) What remedies

should the Commission and affected

licensees have if a station breaches its

negotiated interference agreement?

II. Other Proposals To Give Stations

Greater Technical Flexibility

A. The Point-to-Point Prediction

Methodology

16. Background. Interference between

FM stations is defined in terms of

protected and interfering contours.

Because of the limited length (3 to 16

kilometers) of the radials used to

determine antenna height above average

terrain, the Commission’s standard

propagation methodology does not

accurately account for all terrain effects.

In 1975, the Commission adopted a

limited correction factor to measure

‘‘terrain roughness’’ to overcome the

effects of terrain beyond 16 kilometers.5

However, the Commission later stayed

the general use of the terrain roughness

factor (contained in § 73.313 (f) through

(j) and Figures 4 and 5 of § 73.333)

because of difficulties with ‘‘atypical

terrain configurations.’’ 6 Presently, the

Commission does not accept

supplemental terrain analyses to

determine predicted interference

between FM stations. Thus, applications

proposing new or expanded service may

be precluded unreasonably where

interference is predicted although, in

fact, unlikely.

17. Discussion. In Appendix B of this

document, we set forth a supplemental

point-to-point (‘‘PTP’’) prediction model

which under many circumstances

would provide for a more accurate

prediction of interfering contours. We

propose that an applicant may use the

PTP method to calculate interfering

contours for the purpose of

demonstrating compliance with the

Commission’s various overlap/

interference requirements.7 Such

showings would be limited to the

relationships between the PTP predicted

interfering contours and the affected

station’s standard F(50,50) curve

predicted protected service contour. We

also propose to permit the use of PTP

methodology to demonstrate

compliance with the interference area

and population limits set forth above for

negotiated interference agreements.

18. We tentatively conclude that

applicants should be permitted to use

the PTP methodology for certain other

purposes. All commercial FM stations

must demonstrate compliance with the

community of license city grade

coverage requirements of § 73.315. Since

the PTP methodology more accurately

incorporates the effects of terrain into

the prediction of coverage, we propose

to permit the use of PTP calculations by

both applicants and objectors to resolve

any questions raised regarding

compliance with § 73.315 and to treat

the PTP calculations as controlling. We

propose to require applicants to submit

a PTP contour study where terrain

between a transmitter site and a

community of license could put in issue

either the use of the standard

methodology or the station’s compliance

with city grade coverage requirements.

Existing stations that currently cover

their community based on the standard

prediction method, but fail to satisfy the

PTP methodology, would be exempt

from a PTP determination provided they

do not propose to relocate transmission

facilities or withdraw coverage towards

the community of license. Additionally,

we propose to allow PTP methodology

in two specific instances that require the

calculation of 3.16 mV/m coverage: (1)

compliance with main studio

requirements of § 73.1125; 8 and (2)

demonstration that an allotment, when
33896 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules

9Specifically, out of 28 possible combinations

between the second-and third-adjacent channel

stations, § 73.215 provides 10 km relief to Class

B1—C stations, and 9 km relief to Class C2–C

stations. In addition, four combinations have 3 km

of relief, 14 combinations have 2 km of relief, five

combinations have 1 km of relief, and three

combinations have no relief.

10See St. Croix Wireless Co., Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 7329

(1993). In St. Croix Wireless, Co., the permittee

requested a waiver of § 73.215 as it defined the

protected contour of a Class B station as the 54 dBu

contour. The permittee demonstrated that use of the

54 dBu contour for Class B stations in Puerto Rico

and the Virgin Islands produced an anomalous

result, affording vastly more protection than the

spacings provide. Instead, the permittee showed

that given the spacings and maximum facilities

permitted in this region, the normally protected

contour of such stations is the 63 dBu contour, and

the use of this contour for Caribbean stations

produces a result equivalent to that on the

mainland.

considered at maximum Class facilities,

would comply with § 73.315 with

respect to the community of license (if

use of a supplemental method is

warranted consistent with existing

precedents). We seek comment on these

proposals.

19.The PTP methodology is proposed

in this document for the primary

purpose of demonstrating that the

standard prediction method overstates

the area encompassed by a station’s

interfering contour. Thus, we propose to

prohibit the use of the PTP methodology

to extend interfering contours beyond

the standard F(50,10) predicted curves

for the purpose of demonstrating

harmful interference received. PTP

showings are not permitted in any of

our international agreements and thus

could not be used to demonstrate

compliance with international

requirements. We also propose not to

permit the use of this methodology to

calculate protected service contours for

the purposes of demonstrating: (1) the

lack or existence of overlap; or (2)

compliance or non-compliance with

contour limitations for boosters, fill-in

translators, or auxiliary facilities. In

addition, we propose not to consider

PTP showings in the context of

demonstrating compliance with the

multiple ownership requirements of

§ 73.3555. We seek comments on each

aspect of this proposal regarding the

adoption and use of the PTP

methodology.

20. As noted above, we stayed the

terrain roughness provision because of

difficulties with atypical terrain

configurations. However, this

adjustment and the PTP prediction

method would provide a more

sophisticated and not unduly

burdensome method of assessing the

effects of a variety of terrain anomalies.

Therefore, we propose to delete the

long-stayed terrain roughness provisions

from § 73.313(f) though (j) and Figure 4

of § 73.333 from the Commission’s rules

as they apply to FM broadcast stations.

We seek comment on these proposals.

B. Commercial FM Technical

Requirements: Amendments to § 73.215

i. Reduced Minimum Separation

Requirements in § 73.215(e) for Secondand Third-Adjacent Channel Stations

21. Background. In 1989, the

Commission adopted § 73.215 to afford

FM applicants some additional

flexibility in locating potential

transmitter sites. In response to

concerns of spectrum overcrowding, the

Commission retained minimum but

lesser spacing requirements for § 73.215

applicants. For second- and thirdadjacent channel stations, § 73.215(e)

generally limits the amount of relief

from § 73.207 minimum distance

separation requirements to no more than

three kilometers and in some cases

provides no relief.9 As a result, stations

with second-and third-adjacent channel

spacing problems have, in many cases,

less flexibility to relocate facilities

under § 73.215(e) than under the former

§ 73.207 waiver policies that permitted

the staff to grant spacing waivers of up

to six kilometers.

22. Discussion. We propose to revise

the § 73.215(e) spacing table to afford all

FM commercial stations a minimum of

6 kilometers of relief from the

applicable § 73.207(a) standards. We

also propose that grants under this

proposal would continue to be listed as

a contour protection construction

permit. We seek comment on these

proposals.

ii. Additional Flexibility for Stations in

Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands

23. In 1993, the staff granted a request

for waiver of § 73.215(a)(1) to permit an

alternate method to define the protected

and interfering contours of certain

stations in the Virgin Islands and Puerto

Rico.10 We propose revising § 73.215 to

incorporate the actual protected and

interfering contours for Class A, B1 and

B stations set forth in St Croix Wireless

Co. The proposed modifications take

into account the higher HAAT limits

specified in the rules for Puerto Rico

and the Virgin Islands, while affording

stations additional site location

flexibility. We believe that this revision

would protect other stations from

interference in excess of that which may

occur under our spacing rules. We seek

comment on this proposal.

C. New Class C Height Above Average

Terrain Requirements

24. Background. A recent staff study

reveals that many Class C stations

operate with facilities that are

significantly less than maximum.

Specifically, the study reveals that 519

of the 863 FM stations presently

occupying Class C assignments, or

approximately 60 percent, operate with

facilities less than 450 meters HAAT.

The fact that such a large percentage of

Class C stations are operating more than

150 meters below one-half the

maximum antenna height limitation of

600 meters HAAT indicates that the

Commission’s present allotment

structure overprotects a substantial

number of Class C stations and,

therefore, may unnecessarily preclude

proposals to introduce new and/or

expand existing services.

25. Discussion. We propose to create

an additional intermediate class of

stations between Class C and Class C1,

to be designated Class C0 (Class C zero).

Class C0 stations would have a

maximum height limitation of 450

meters HAAT and a minimum antenna

height requirement of 300 meters

HAAT. Both classes of stations would

be required to maintain a power level of

100 kW, the present value for Class C

stations. Under this proposal, Class C

stations would be required to operate at

a minimum antenna height of no less

than 451 meters HAAT. We would

amend the FM distance separation

tables to include the reduced spacing

requirements for the new station class.

In order to provide a reasonable

opportunity for existing Class C stations

not operating at the proposed antenna

height minimum to maintain their full

Class C status, we propose a three-year

transition period to obtain a

construction permit specifying an

antenna HAAT of at least 451 meters.

During the three-year period, each such

station would be renewed on a

conditional basis. If the station has not

obtained the necessary authorization

within the three-year period, then the

station would be reclassified as a Class

C0 station. We seek comments regarding

this proposal, including comments that

may shed light on the additional service

the proposed additional station class

could create, the effect of the loss of

primary service areas for reclassified

Class C0 stations, and whether creation

of a temporary ‘‘buffer zone’’ to protect

the ability of existing Class C stations to

upgrade during the three-year transition

period would be appropriate.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules 33897

11We propose to continue to treat AM

applications to change from Class B to Class D as

‘‘minor’’ changes.

12See 47 CFR 73.1690(b)(2) and 73.3536.

13 In 1996, the Commission received comments in

response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in

MM Docket 96–58 requesting that a rule be adopted

to allow a coordinate correction in a modification

of license application, thereby eliminating the

requirement for a construction permit. See Certain

Minor Changes in Broadcast Facilities Without a

Construction Permit, Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, 61 FR 15439, April 8, 1996. The

Commission denied the request stating that the

proposed one-step procedure could invite abuse by

applicants ‘‘correcting’’ coordinates to a shortspaced transmitter site or a site involving

prohibited contour overlap. By retaining the

construction permit process, the Commission

indicated that the safeguards against abuse inherent

in the construction permit process would be not be

lost. See Certain Minor Changes in Broadcast

Facilities without a Construction Permit, Report and

Order, 62 FR 51052, September 30, 1997. We now

believe that limiting one-step license application

coordinate corrections to situations involving less

than 3 seconds of longitude and latitude would

provide adequate safeguards. We seek comment on

this conclusion.

D. Streamlined Application Processing

Changes

i. Extending First Come/First Served

Processing to AM, NCE FM and FM

Translator Minor Change Applications

26. Background. Under our present

rules, minor change applications for

non-reserved FM band broadcast

stations are subject to ‘‘first come/first

served’’ processing, whereby a first-filed

application cuts off the filing rights of

subsequent, mutually exclusive

proposals. Minor changes for AM,

reserved FM band and FM translator

stations do not receive such cut-off

protection, but remain subject to

competing proposals until the staff

disposes of the applications. This policy

imposes significant uncertainty and

delay on minor change applicants in

these services: at any time during the

pendency of an application, a

conflicting proposal may be filed that

could halt further processing of the

application and necessitate a technical

amendment, settlement between the

parties or designation of the mutually

exclusive applications for comparative

hearing.

27. Discussion. We propose to extend

application of the first come/first served

processing system to AM, NCE FM and

FM translator minor change

applications. We believe that the

unlimited exposure to conflicting

applications and the concomitant

expense and delay under the current

policy is both inequitable and

inconsistent with our treatment of

minor changes for FM commercial band

stations. We anticipate that this

proposal would effectively remedy the

uncertainty and delay presently

associated with AM, NCE FM and FM

translator minor change applications.

We invite comment on this proposal.

ii. Revisions to the Definition of

‘‘Minor’’ Change in AM, NCE FM, and

FM Translator Services

28. Background. Under our present

rules, a proposed change in the facilities

of an existing commercial FM band

station is classified as a major change

only if it involves a change in

community of license and/or certain

changes in frequency and/or class. For

AM, NCE FM and FM translator

stations, however, various other facility

changes also are classified as major

changes: (1) for AM stations, most

proposed increases in power; (2) for

NCE FM stations, any proposed change

of 50 percent or more in the station’s

predicted 1 mV/m (60 dBu) coverage

area; and (3) for FM translators, any

proposed change or increase of over 10

percent in the 1 mV/m coverage area.

Accordingly, facility modification

applications in these services may be

subject to additional administrative

procedures.

29. We propose to expand the

definition of minor change for the AM,

NCE FM and FM translator services to

conform to the commercial FM ‘‘minor

change’’ definition. Thus, only

applications to change community of

license and to change to a non-mutually

exclusive channel and class would be

classified as ‘‘major’’ changes.11 To

prevent NCE FM and FM translator

stations from abandoning their present

service areas, however, we propose to

require these stations to continue to

provide 1 mV/m service to some portion

of their presently authorized 1 mV/m

service areas in order for their

applications to be classified as minor

changes. We tentatively conclude that

this proposal would eliminate the

present inconsistent treatment of

proposed facilities increases for

different radio services without

undermining the administration of any

Commission rule or policy. We invite

comment on this proposal.

iii. Coordinate Corrections by Single

Application for Licensed Stations

30. Background. Presently, broadcast

stations seeking to correct coordinates

must file a construction permit

application, and after grant, a license

application.12 Coordinate corrections,

however, are generally considered to be

minor changes to broadcast facilities

because they do not involve physical

changes to the facilities or a change in

licensed parameters. We believe that for

many coordinate corrections the twoapplication procedure is unduly

burdensome.

31. Discussion. We propose to adopt

new provisions in Parts 73 and 74 to

allow corrections of coordinates for

broadcast facilities, where no other

licensed parameters are changed, via a

single license application. We also

propose to require the applicant to

certify that all licensed parameters not

altered in the license application would

remain unchanged. Under our proposal,

the applicant would not be required to

file a separate construction permit. We

propose to make this procedure

available where the correction would be

less than 3 seconds latitude and 3

seconds longitude, provided that the

applicant has sought FAA clearance and

antenna structure registration.13 We seek

comment on this proposal and whether

an alternative standard should be

adopted. We also propose to continue

our policy of issuing public notices

announcing the receipt of the

application, and the processing of the

coordinate correction as if it were a

routine minor change application.

However, in the event the coordinate

correction establishes a violation of our

technical rules, the Commission would

retain a full range of options including

the designation of the license

application for hearing and the issuance

of an order to show cause why the

construction permit should not be

revoked. We propose to require any

permittee that discovers an antenna

structure coordinate error to file an

application to modify its outstanding

construction permit. We tentatively

conclude that the Commission may

adopt this change in licensing

procedures pursuant to section 319(d) of

the Communications Act. We seek

comment on these proposals.

iv. FM Translator and Booster Station

Power Reductions by Single Application

32. Background. We have found when

reviewing license renewals that many

FM translator and booster stations are

actually operating at a power less than

that specified in their license. In order

to authorize the reduced power

operation, we now require licensees to

go through the two-step process. In

addition, FM translator licensees may

resolve an interference complaint by a

reduction in power. In this instance, the

two-step process delays the resolution

of the interference problem.

33. Discussion. In order to expedite

FM station license modifications in

these circumstances, we propose to

eliminate the two-step application

process for FM translator and booster

stations seeking to decrease ERP. We

tentatively conclude that recent changes
33898 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules

14 In 1996, Congress amended section 319 of the

Act to authorize the Commission to waive the

requirement for a construction permit for minor

changes in the facilities of authorized broadcast

stations. Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L.

No. 104–104, § 403(m), 110 Stat. 56 (1996).

15The 97 and 94 dBu interfering contours will be

specified for second-adjacent channel FM translator

stations protecting class B1 and B stations in the

reserved band, respectively.

16This notice neither makes nor proposes any

change to this permanent freeze policy. We note

that the Commission has requested public comment

on two rulemaking petitions to establish a low

power or microbroadcasting service. See Public

Notice, Report No. 2254 (released February 5, 1998)

(RM # 9208); Public Notice, Report No. 2262

(released March 12, 1998) (RM # 9242) (erratum).

17The study reveals that 38 of the 70 Class D

stations with reserved band licenses are causing

interference.

in section 319 of the Communications

Act permit the Commission to adopt

this one step licensing procedure.14 We

seek comment on this view. In these

instances, we would permit licensees to

decrease their ERP after the filing of a

license application proposing the power

decrease. We seek comment on this

proposal.

E. Relaxed NCE FM and Translator

Technical Requirements

i. Second-Adjacent Channel Interference

Ratios for Predicting Prohibited Overlap

in the Reserved Band

34. Background. The Commission’s

commercial FM station interference

protection standards require stations

operating on the same channel or any of

the first three adjacent channels to meet

certain minimum distance standards.

Like commercial FM stations, NCE FM

stations are protected from interference

by stations operating on co- and the first

three adjacent channels under the rules.

The NCE FM rules do not specify

minimum distance separation

requirements. Actual, rather than

maximum class facilities are used to

calculate whether prohibited contour

overlap would occur. Thus, the location

of a station’s service and interfering

contours determines the preclusionary

impact of such stations on other

potential cochannel and adjacent

channel facilities. Although both

commercial and NCE FM interference

standards are derived from a common

methodology, the commercial rules use

a less preclusive 100 dBu interfering

contour to calculate minimum distance

separations for stations operating on

second-adjacent frequencies.

35. Discussion. We propose to

eliminate the inconsistency between the

commercial and NCE FM station

interference protection standards.

Specifically, we propose to modify

§§ 73.509 and 74.1204(a) to specify a

100 dBu interfering contour for secondadjacent channel NCE FM and FM

translator stations.15 We seek comment

on this proposed rule change.

ii. Minimum Coverage of the

Community of License by NCE FM

Stations

36. Background. The Commission’s

rules do not require NCE FM stations

operating in the reserved band

(Channels 201 to 220) to place a

minimum field strength signal over their

communities of license, unlike their

commercial counterparts. The

Commission enacted this policy based

on the fact that many NCE FM stations

operate at low power levels and simply

could not provide coverage to the entire

area within the legal boundaries of its

community of license. The Commission

also recognized that NCE FM stations

are generally dependent on listener

support, and may not have the financial

resources to construct facilities that

serve the entire community of license.

However, public interest concerns are

raised where an NCE FM station covers

no portion of its community of license

with its 60 dBu contour. The association

of a broadcast station with a community

of license is a basic tenet of the

Commission’s allocation scheme for

broadcast stations.

37. Discussion. We propose to delete

the Note to § 73.315(a) and to add a

provision requiring NCE FM stations to

provide 60 dBu (1 mV/m) service to at

least a portion of the community of

license. We believe this proposal would

give NCE FM applicants significant

flexibility to locate technical facilities,

consistent with the Commission’s

statutory licensing requirements. We

seek comment on this proposal and on

the percentage of the population and/or

area of the community that should be

covered. In the event that an NCE FM

community coverage standard is

adopted, we propose to apply the rule

only to new station and modification

applications filed after the effective date

of this new rule. We seek comment on

these tentative conclusions.

iii. Revisions to Class D Rules

38. Background. The Commission

created a low power NCE FM Class D

service in 1948, as an inexpensive

means of encouraging the FM

broadcasting service and as a substitute

for the ‘‘campus broadcasting systems’’

then in use. By 1976, however, the

demand for NCE FM licenses had

increased dramatically, prompting the

Commission to initiate a rule making

proceeding to determine how to foster

the most effective use of NCE FM

spectrum. The Commission concluded

that Class D stations constituted an

inefficient use of spectrum, and adopted

measures to minimize their negative

impact on the development of the NCE

FM radio service. Specifically, the

Commission encouraged Class D

stations to upgrade to Class A status. It

required Class D stations that did not

upgrade to migrate to a commercial FM

channel or Channel 200, where they

would have secondary status. Those

stations unable to migrate would be

required to move to the reserved band

channel with ‘‘the least preclusionary

impact on other potential stations[.]’’ In

addition, the Commission ended Class D

stations’ protection against interference

and imposed a permanent freeze on

applications for new Class D stations.16

39.The Commission remains

committed to promoting the full use of

the NCE FM channels. Congestion in the

reserved band has increased during the

past twenty years, and demand for NCE

FM licenses remains high. Furthermore,

a recent staff study reveals that a

number of the remaining Class D

stations with reserved band

authorizations are causing interference

to full service NCE FM stations.17 We

believe, therefore, that certain

modifications to our Class D policies are

appropriate. We anticipate that the

changes proposed herein would serve

the Commission’s original objective

while avoiding the unnecessary

cancellation of Class D licenses. In

addition, we believe that the proposed

changes would simplify and expedite

Class D station licensing and renewal

procedures.

40. Discussion. Under § 73.512(a),

Class D stations are required with each

renewal cycle to migrate to an available

commercial channel or Channel 200, or

demonstrate the unavailability of such

channels. We do not believe the

administrative burdens these

requirements impose on both licensees

and the Commission staff are warranted

where an existing Class D station is

operating on an NCE FM channel

without objectionable interference.

Accordingly, we propose to permit Class

D stations to operate on any channel

where no interference (as defined by

§ 73.509(b)) would be caused to any

broadcast station, and to eliminate the

requirement that Class D licensees with

reserved band authorizations

demonstrate the unavailability of any

commercial FM channel or Channel 200

in their license renewal applications.

Under this proposal, the staff would

handle channel location issues as they

arise rather than addressing them as

license renewal issues. Furthermore,

whereas the current rules require Class

D stations to migrate to available
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules 33899

18The current rules define Class D stations

operating in the non-reserved band as ‘‘secondary,’’

and we propose no change in this definition. See

47 CFR 73.506(a). For purposes of this Class D

channel displacement discussion, Channel 200 is

treated as an NCE FM channel.

19We would allow Class D licensees to obtain

such consent not only for the channel they are

currently operating on but for any NCE FM channel

or Channel 200.

20 In this regard, we also propose to grandfather

‘‘underpowered’’ Class A facilities: Class A stations

authorized prior to the adoption of the Class A

minimum power and antenna height requirements

in § 73.511 which do not meet such requirements.

47 CFR 73.211(a)(3). In practice, such stations

currently are treated as Class A facilities.

21We invite comment as to whether an

application by a Class D station proposing to

upgrade to Class A status should be classified as a

major change. Arguably, a Class D to A upgrade

should be classified as a major change because it

would confer protected status on the subject station.

commercial channels or Channel 200

and contain no provision for such

stations to move back to the reserved

band, the proposed new rules would

allow existing Class D stations to

relocate to any available interferencefree reserved or nonreserved channel in

order to avoid receiving interference

from full power FM stations, or for any

other reason.

41. With regard to Class D stations

that are causing or are predicted to

cause interference (as defined by

§ 73.509(b)) on their current channel, we

propose to apply the following

standards: first, stations would be

required to move to an available

interference-free channel; second, if no

interference-free channel is available,

stations would be required to move to

an NCE FM channel that would result

in only second- and/or third-adjacent

channel contour overlap; 18 and third, if

no channel is available that would be

either interference-free or create only

second-and/or third-adjacent channel

interference, the station would be

required to obtain the consent of each

affected NCE FM station subject to coor first-adjacent channel interference as

a condition for continued operation.

Should there be a number of potential

channels for an existing Class D station

in this situation to choose from, we

propose to require applicants to adhere

to the following frequency selection

criteria: first, we would prefer overlap

beyond an affected station’s community

of license to overlap within the licensed

community; second, we would prefer

third to second adjacent channel

overlap; and third, we would prefer

overlap involving the smallest

percentage of population in a station’s

coverage area, so that there would be the

least possible adverse impact on the

affected station. In conjunction with

these changes, we also propose to

eliminate the ‘‘least preclusion’’

requirement, which is inadequately

defined in the existing rules and has

proved impracticable. With regard to

Class D stations presently causing

second or third adjacent channel

overlap in the NCE FM band, we invite

comment as to whether such stations

should be allowed to remain on their

present channels absent actual

complaints of interference or required to

move in accordance with the standards

proposed herein.

42. A recent staff study reveals that

every Class D station authorized to

operate on a reserved band frequency

has available at the present time an NCE

FM channel on which it could operate

free of co- or first-adjacent channel

contour overlap. However, in the event

that changes in NCE FM authorizations

create a situation where no channel free

of co- and first-adjacent channel

interference is available, we propose to

require the Class D station to obtain the

consent of the affected NCE FM

station(s) as a condition for continued

operation.19 In the event that no

agreement is reached, the Class D

station would be required to cease

operation when program tests for the

affected station commence, and would

have up to one year to obtain the

required consent.

43. Revise Class D Definition Based on

Transmitter Power Output. The current

rules define Class D stations as stations

with transmitter power output (‘‘TPO’’)

of 10 watts or less. Higher class NCE FM

stations, however, are defined by their

predicted 1 mV/m (60 dBu) contour

distances, as determined by power and

antenna height in accordance with

§ 73.211(b). We propose to conform the

definition of Class D stations to that of

higher class NCE FM stations, by

eliminating the TPO restriction and

instead defining Class D stations as

stations with predicted 60 dBu contour

distances not exceeding five kilometers,

as determined in accordance with

§ 73.211(b). We are aware of five Class

D stations with predicted 60 dBu

contour distances exceeding the

proposed five kilometer restriction. We

propose to grandfather such

‘‘superpowered’’ Class D facilities,

permitting them to continue to operate

as Class D stations at their present

power and antenna height and to

modify their facilities provided they do

not extend their predicted 60 dBu

contour distances.20

44. Classify Construction Permit

Applications as Minor Changes. Certain

Class D construction permit

applications, including those proposing

operation on a new channel, are treated

as major change applications. We

propose to consider all Class D facility

applications as minor change

applications that would be processed

under our more efficient ‘‘first come/

first served’’ procedures. In light of the

unprotected status of Class D stations,

only other Class D applications would

be affected by this proposal, and

mutually exclusive Class D applications

are extremely unlikely due to the low

power and relatively small number of

Class D stations. By eliminating the 30-

day public notice period for Class D

permit applications, we anticipate that

this proposal would expedite processing

of such applications, conferring an

important benefit on displaced Class D

stations.21 Consistent with the above, we

propose to permit Class D stations to

propose changes of licensed community

or of 50 percent or more of the area

within their predicted 1 mV/m contour

areas provided their applications

demonstrate that they would maintain

continuity of service to their core

audience. The present rules prohibit

such changes in order to prevent the

establishment of ‘‘new’’ Class D stations.

We seek comment on these proposals.

45. Revise Contour Protection

Requirements for Class B and B1

Stations. Section 73.509(b) requires

Class D stations to protect the 1 mV/m

(60 dBu) contour of all other broadcast

stations, regardless of class or location

on the FM band. Commercial Class B

and B1 FM stations, however,

traditionally have received greater

protection to their 0.5 mV/m (54 dBu)

and 0.7 mV/m (57 dBu) contours,

respectively. Accordingly, we propose

to modify § 73.509(b) to require Class D

stations to protect commercial Class B

and B1 stations, as well as NCE FM

Class B and B1 stations operating on

commercial channels, to their respective

54 dBu and 57 dBu contours. We invite

comment as to whether Class D stations

that currently are required to protect the

60 dBu contours of Class B or B1

stations but would not comply with the

proposed new standard should be

permitted to continue to operate at their

present powers and antenna heights

absent actual interference complaints.

46. We invite comment on these Class

D station proposals. Are they warranted

in the interest of improved NCE FM

channel use? Would they promote more

efficient use of NCE FM channels?

Should we apply to Class D stations the

‘‘actual interference’’ standard

applicable to FM translators? Would the

proposed changes sufficiently protect

the ability of Class D stations to

continue to operate?
33900 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules

22 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the

definition of ‘‘small business concern’’ in 15 U.S.C.

632). Pursuant to the RFA, the statutory definition

of a small business applies ‘‘unless an agency, after

consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration and after

opportunity for public comment, establishes one or

more definitions of such term which are

appropriate to the activities of the agency and

publishes such definition(s) in the Federal

Register.’’ 5 U.S.C. 601(3). While we tentatively

believe that the SBA’s definition of ‘‘small

business’’ greatly overstates the number of radio

broadcast stations that are small businesses and is

not suitable for purposes of determining the impact

of the proposals on small radio stations, for

purposes of this document, we utilize the SBA’s

definition in determining the number of small

businesses to which the proposed rules would

apply, but we reserve the right to adopt a more

suitable definition of ‘‘small business’’ as applied

to radio broadcast stations subject to the proposed

rules in this document and to consider further the

issue of the number of small entities that are radio

broadcasters or other small media entities in the

future.

III. Procedural Matters

47. Paperwork Reduction Act. This

Notice proposes rule and procedural

revisions that may contain information

collection requirements subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(PRA), Public Law 104–13. It has been

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) for review under

§ 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general

public and other federal agencies are

invited to comment on the information

collection requirements proposed in this

proceeding. Public and agency

comments are due at the same time as

other comments in this Notice; OMB

comments are due August 21, 1998.

Comments should address: (a) whether

the proposed collection of information

is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the Commission,

including whether the information shall

have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of

the Commission’s burden estimates; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility and

clarity of the information collected; and

(d) ways to minimize the burden of the

collection of information on the

respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

In addition to filing comments with the

Secretary, a copy of any comments on

the information collection requirements

proposed herein should be submitted to

Judy Boley, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street,

N.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the

Internet to jboley@fcc.gov and to

Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236

NEOB, 725—17th Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20503 or via the

Internet to fainlt@al.eop.gov.

48. Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding

will be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ proceeding subject to the

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ requirements

under § 1.1206(b) of the rules. 47 CFR

1.1206(b), as revised. Ex parte

presentations are permissible if

disclosed in accordance with

Commission rules, except during the

Sunshine Agenda period when

presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are

generally prohibited. Persons making

oral ex parte presentations are reminded

that a memorandum summarizing a

presentation must contain a summary of

the substance of the presentation and

not merely a listing of the subjects

discussed. More than a one- or twosentence description of the views and

arguments presented is generally

required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2), as

revised. Additional rules pertaining to

oral and written presentations are set

forth in § 1.1206(b).

49. Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis. As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission

has prepared an Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the

expected significant economic impact

on small entities by the policies and

rules proposed in this Notice. Written

public comments are requested on the

IRFA. Comments must be identified as

responses to the IRFA and must be filed

by the deadlines for comments on the

Notice.

A. Need for and Objectives of the

Proposed Rules

50. This rulemaking proceeding is

initiated to obtain comments concerning

the Commission’s proposed amendment

of certain technical rules and policies

governing the radio broadcast services.

B. Legal Basis

51. Authority for the actions proposed

in this Notice document may be found

in sections 4(i), 4(j), 303, 308, 309, and

310 of the Communications Act of 1934,

as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j),

303, 308, 309, and 310.

C. Description and Estimate of the

Number of Small Entities To Which the

Proposed Rules Will Apply

52. RFA generally defines the term

‘‘small entity ‘‘ as having the same

meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’

‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small

governmental jurisdiction.’’ In addition,

the term ‘‘small business’’ has the same

meaning as the term ‘‘small business

concern’’ under the Small Business

Act.22 A small business concern is one

which: (1) is independently owned and

operated; (2) is not dominant in its field

of operation; and (3) satisfies any

additional criteria established by the

Small Business Administration (SBA). A

small organization is generally ‘‘any notfor-profit enterprise which is

independently owned and operated and

is not dominant in its field.’’ ‘‘Small

governmental jurisdiction’’ generally

means ‘‘governments of cities, counties,

towns, townships, villages, school

districts, or special districts, with a

population of less than 50,000.’’

53. The proposed rules and policies

will apply to radio broadcasting

licensees and potential licensees. The

Small Business Administration defines

a radio broadcasting station that has no

more than $5 million in annual receipts

as a small business. A radio

broadcasting station is an establishment

primarily engaged in broadcasting aural

programs by radio to the public. As of

January 31, 1998, official Commission

records indicate that 12,241 radio

stations were operating, of which 7,488

were FM stations. Thus, the proposed

rules will affect some of the 12,241

radio stations, approximately 11,751 of

which are small businesses. These

estimates may overstate the number of

small entities since the revenue figures

on which they are based do not include

or aggregate revenues from non-radio

affiliated companies.

54. In addition to owners of operating

radio stations, any entity who seeks or

desires to obtain a radio broadcast

license may be affected by the proposals

contained in this item. The number of

entities that may seek to obtain a radio

broadcast license is unknown. We invite

comment as to such number.

D. Description of Projected Recording,

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance

Requirements

55. In addition to enhancing

opportunities for improvement of radio

broadcast technical facilities and

service, a number of the measures

proposed in this notice document

would reduce the reporting required of

prospective and current applicants,

permittees and licensees.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant

Economic Impact on Small Entities and

Significant Alternatives Considered

56. This notice document solicits

comment on a variety of alternatives

discussed herein. These alternatives are

intended to enhance opportunities for

improvement of technical facilities and

service and eliminate unnecessary

administrative burdens and delays

associated with our radio broadcast

licensing processes. Any significant

alternatives presented in the comments

will be considered.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules 33901

F. Federal Rules that Overlap,

Duplicate, or Conflict With the Proposed

Rules

57. None.

Ordering Clauses

58. Accordingly, it is ordered, that

pursuant to the authority contained in

sections 4(i), 4(j), 303, 308, 309 and 310

of the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303,

308, 309 and 310, this Notice of

Proposed Rule Making and Order is

adopted.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 73

Radio, reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

47 CFR Part 74

Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–16514 Filed 6–19–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AC09

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Reopening of the

Comment Period on the Proposed

Endangered Status and Notice of

Availability of the Draft Conservation

Agreement for Review and Comment

for Pediocactus winkleri (Winkler

cactus) in Central Utah

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of

comment period.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

provides notice that the comment

period is reopened on a proposal to list

Pediocactus winkleri (Winkler cactus) as

endangered, pursuant to the Endangered

Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended.

The Service is reopening the comment

period on this proposal and any new

information. In addition, the Service

announces the availability of a draft

conservation agreement for Pediocactus

winkleri, also for public comment. This

conservation agreement is accessible on

the internet at www.blm.gov\utah.

DATES: The comment period on this

proposal and draft conservation

agreement is extended until July 22,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and

materials concerning the proposal and

draft conservation agreement should be

sent to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Lincoln Plaza

Suite 404, 145 East 1300 South, Salt

Lake City, Utah 84115. Comments and

materials received will be available for

public inspection, by appointment,

during normal business hours at the

above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John L. England at the above address

(telephone 801/524–5001).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On October 6, 1993, the Service

proposed to add Pediocactus winkleri

(Winkler cactus) to the list of

endangered and threatened plants (58

FR 52059). At that time Pediocactus

winkleri was known from six

populations with a total population of

about 3,500 plants with a range in

central Utah from near Notom in central

Wayne County to near Fremont Junction

in southwestern Emery County.

Since the closing of the comment

period on December 6, 1993, an

additional population has been

discovered near Ferron in western

Emery County, Utah. In addition,

additional plants have been

documented within previously known

populations. While the documented

numbers of the species have increased

little over the 1993 estimates, the

Service now estimates that the

population may number up to 10,000

plants (Fish and Wildlife Service 1994,

1997). The Bureau of Land Management

and the National Park Service initiated

a comprehensive inventory of the

species within its potential habitat in

the spring of 1998.

The Species continues to be exploited

by cactus collectors. In 1984, the Service

established a population monitoring

transect for P. winkleri in an easily

accessible area that cactus collectors

frequent (Fish and Wildlife Service

1994, 1997). The Service has

periodically monitored this transect,

usually at 2-year intervals. The P.

winkeri population along this transect

declined from 53 plants 1984 to zero

plants in 1997. The Notom population’s

estimated size has declined from about

2,000 individuals in 1984 (Heil 1984) to

an estimated 700 individuals in 1997

(Fish and Wildlife Service 1997). The

Service during its 1997 survey of the

Notom population discovered several

shovel marks within the occupied

habitat of this species. These marks

were at the locations of plants last

observed in 1994 and missing in 1997.

Threats to species and its habitat, from

off-highway vehicles, mining and

quarrying, oil and gas drilling, and

livestock trampling, continue with

varying significance throughout the

species range (Fish and Wildlife Service

1997).

A moratorium on listing actions

(Public Law 104–6) took effect April 10,

1996, and prevented the Service from

making a final decision on this proposal

by the August 1995 administrative

deadline. The moratorium was lifted on

April 26, 1996, when the appropriation

for the Department of the Interior for the

remainder of fiscal year 1996 was

enacted into law. In a Federal Register

document published on May 16, 1996

(61 FR 24722), the Service outline in

detail the history of the moratorium and

indicated the priorities it would follow

in eliminating the listing program

backlog resulting from the moratorium.

Preparation of the final rule for this

proposed species is considered a Tier 2

priority—processing final decisions on

proposed listings. For more information

on the moratorium and the priority for

backlogged listing actions, refer to the

May 16, 1996, Federal Register notice.

The Service does not believe that the

new distributional and population

information has changed the status of

the species. However, we are reopening

the comment period on the proposed

rule to solicit comments on this new

information and request any additional

information on scientific studies

conducted since the comment period

last closed on December 6, 1993.

The Draft Conservation Agreement

was developed by the Bureau of Land

Management, in coordination with the

Park Service, Forest Service, and the

Service. The agreement focuses on

identifying, reducing and eliminating

significant threats to Pediocactus

winkleri (and P. Despainii, a listed

species) that warrant its candidate

status, and on enhancing and

maintaining the species population to

ensure its long term conservation. The

Service also is seeking comments on the

adequacy of the proposed conservation

agreement and whether or not the

agreement will satisfactorily provide for

the species conservation independent of

the Endangered Species Act. The

Service hereby announces reopening of

the comment period until July 22, 1998.

References Cited

Heil, K.D. 1984. Status report on Pediocactus

winkleri. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Denver, Colorado. 14 pp.